Thankfully."If you don't like it, don't watch it."
I guess people listened.
News Season 2 will be the last (show cancelled)
- Thread starter BlueStuff
- Start date
And spend a lot of time complaining about something they hate.
Anyone ever think it's a more positive and optimistic use of time to talk about what you love in a franchise? No? Just me?
If Paramount is trying to sell season two, and some one actually buys it... And turns a healthy profit... The buyer will either want to purchase a third season of Star Fleet Academy, that some poor bastard has to put together, or maybe start a brand new but similar Star Trek project, using perhaps some of the actors or concepts from Starfleet Academy.
Right? Hunter isnt exactly Sandra Bullock or Scarlett Johanson. She is a decent actress, but hardly a name with any star power.
I cant believe they paid Holly Hunter that much. IMO she was the worse part of the entire show. Its the first time I ever watched a Trek series and thought the main lead was miscast. She turned far more people off than on.
Last edited:
You didn't watch much Enterprise then?
Yep. I had no issues with Scott Bakula. Far more believable in his role than Hunter
Last edited:
Bakula was badly miscast as Archer. As was Bujold with Janeway.
Bakula wasn't cast.
He was stunt cast.
They wanted the 14 million people that tuned in for Quatnum Leap a decade earlier.
She has star power, but it's focused towards the type of things which don't have much crossover with people who would want to watch Star Trek.
When a showrunner decides they want a specific actor or actress for a part that person has a significant amount power in contract negotiations because the showrunner can't just walk away.
So does a red dwarf.
Unfortunately that's not usually how these mega-deals work.
Disney bought 20th Century Fox (the studio -- not the network, Fox News, or the TV stations in major cities) in 2019. You'd think 1+1=2... but in this case it was more like combining two to get... 1.25? 20th Century now exists mainly as a shell to exploit existing IP. The TV studio was merged with Disney/ABC/Touchstone... at best it can be said they more or less left FX alone.
Disney is such a behemoth that the internal bureaucracy to approve and release content on physical media stalled even Fox's prior lackluster output.
Warners under Zaslav has been doing relatively well. String of profitable and/or critically acclaimed films... They've managed to greatly reduce their debt. Physical media output is great, and also licensing to excellent third party boutique labels like Arrow...
Sure, they aren't perfect. They cut bone and not just fat in their streaming content purge.
But Skydance is greatly overpaying for Warner. Which means massive layoffs and cutbacks in production. Five years down the line, end consumers will be lucky if 1+1 ends up equaling out even 1.5...
Much like Disney, only so much production can be on the executives bandwidth at any given time. A Paramount combined with Warners "needs" Star Trek much less than a Paramount Skydance on its own.
Ideally, this means TPTB could give up on their endless attempts to make Star Trek into yet another popcorn generic genre franchise, "let Star Trek be Star Trek", and go back to appealing to a more narrow yet more profitable from auxiliary revenue fanbase. Or they just don't have the bandwidth for it and it falls by the wayside for the last decade or so of mass film/TV production being a "thing" before AI consumes everything...
A.I. unfortunately is getting better and easier to make films and books with each passing month. Soon movie and tv studios might be obsolete or very severely reduced in importance. Anyway ultimately i dont think paranount will be able to buy Warners outright. After they fail to buy no other major studio or streaming platform will be able to. At that point if Warners goes under Paramount will probably buy it piece meal. Basically its parts like HBO, DC etc. That even the states can't stop .
Last edited:
Not until they can generate something that people will actually pay to see.
Warners in its current state is likely to last longer than Paramount Skydance in its current state. During the CBS / Viacom split, the Paramount film studio was by and large mismanaged, while the cable assets continued to decline in value. Re-merging CBS and Viacom effectively caused Viacom to be overvalued, which was then translated forward into the new company as high debt. New Paramount then lost a lot of value, and Skydance effectively took on the debt when it bought the Redstone family out and then had to overpay the secondary shareholders to avoid lawsuits. The Ellisons might be a super rich family... but they used their assets to borrow money, not pay outright.
The main problem for both Warners and Paramount is streaming is unsustainable... too fragmented, too much of a loss leader, too high of a cost per episode, different studios fighting to be one of the final three or so streamers that remain... The average viewer is just signal jammed with choice. Hence why a name brand like Star Trek or Dexter or CSI whatever is so important for Paramount... those get brought forward in the viewing queue, while some new project that looks interesting enough to check out eventually languishes for on the list for years as people worry oh that show could get canceled on a cliffhanger, might get too political, might not stick the landing...
At the end of the day, they're likely to backwards reinvent cable or, well, Hulu...
Perhaps, but it could also democratise production in the way sites like YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok did, and cause similar issues for what I suppose will end up being termed "legacy media" - you don't need to make things that people will actively pay to see, you just need to make things people will click on, and whatever platform can then sustain itself (and pay users) through advertising and such.
I don't think there'll be a market for the kind of stuff that's come out so far (where it's just people prompting "make me a sci-fi show" and letting a janky video gen model do 95% of the work), but people using AI to produce human-written, human-acted scripts could be another story entirely.
Last edited:
Third Year cadets spend a lot of time on starships, not in school, IIRC. So they could regather the cast and have a whole soundstage worth of brand new sets that don't have to reassemble those of Season Two.
This is highly unlikely as it is, certainly to Netflix as the unfounded rumours claim since they have removed all Star Trek from their service worldwide now.
Certianly no service is going to pay 2000% more than they would have done a few years ago especially for a show that is unlikely to have a renaissance any time soon.
But if the price is cut down to %50?
It would be heralded by a passing flock of sus scrofa avis.
Well let's hope studios develop something to get fans back in theaters. Hard for me to believe people would rather stay home. The theater experience is still unique and a lot of fun.
Well theyll need to do it soon. They get hits every so often but not like the olden days. Online, a.i, social media they are the biggest threat studios have had to face since the invention of the television. They younger generations are living on their phones now.
I heard if some lady that has written a ton of books on a.i. within a year. She's making money. Ill need to look up that story. Scary stuff.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
